Hello all -

I have found that I have been 'throwing' a lot of games, not intentionally mind you, but due to an inferiorly developed endgame / midgame finish. I frequently find myself in a good battle with good position, even advantageous, or with some small material lead, but still bungle up the game.

In this game, after a relatively early queen exchange on move 16-19 I believe, (coupled with a rook exchange as well) my overall position was tenebale as black, and though I managed to snag a pawn lead, and soon a two pawn lead, I still found the win to be a great struggle as the game proceeded another 50ish moves before my opponent finally resigned.

I think I did a fair job, but I am sure it could have been better, and I may have only squeaked by due to my opponent's equally, or even less developed endgame prowess... lol

I would very much appreciate some analysis as I am working to improve the latter half of my game in general - also it was quite exciting for an endgame:

it was an ok job. i think why you struggled so hard is because you had opposite coloured bishops in the endgame. very difficult to actually win an endgame like that even when  2 pawns up

I see you played it later, but 17...f5 at once seems to give you a very powerful attack.

24...Bxg4 looks like it wins outright. (edit, ok so I missed the queen easily makes it to g2, so you're right 24...Rxg4 is better avoiding both sets of doubled pawns).

Ok, move 27 you ask for help on this last half.  The primary rule of endgames in my mind is, it's all about activity.  With less pieces on the board, each pieces capacity to work for your position becomes very important.  If even one piece is left at half strength for long, your whole position will feel it.  That and which pawns are targets/weaknesses should be at the forefront of your mind in an endgame.  I mention this because it seems like both players here ignore it and I'll be referencing this idea.

Oh, and from 27-32 you play logically in that it's a good idea to try and force enemy pawn onto the same color as their bishop and keep your pawns off your bishop's color (even though beginners often rush in any kind of bishop endgame to do the opposite).

32...a5 seems like a logical idea, but only if you followed it up with 33...a4 making it more difficult for white to free his bishop with b3 which he should do in any case, whether it loses a pawn or not.  You should be aware though that this move transferred your weakness from the 7th rank to the 6th (it had been your a7 pawn, now is your b6 pawn, and this is important in some cases of rook endgames to be aware of such a change... weaknesses on your own 2nd rank (7th rank for black) are generally more manageable).

Ok so lets get started, looking at the position after 33.Kf2 what do you think about your pieces activity?  You have to maximize your king, rook, and bishop if you hope to win this (or any) endgame.  So what do you think?

First off, the rook on e6 is miserable, it's the worse blockader out of your 3 pieces for this passed pawn.  Black should seriously consider 33...Kf7 with the moves Re8 Ke6 in mind.  This brings your king closer to the center and gives your rook a future on the d file, h file, or even on the queenside if you end up opening there.  This is definitely achieves positive things for your position. 

Instead you leave your rook deactivated and shuttle your king off to the edge of the board, but your opponent lets you play 35...g5 and worse completely ignores his bishop.  This was a good time for white to play 34.Re2-d2 (your bishop would go to d3 to prevent his rook from infiltrating) after which he can free his bishop with b3.

I don't want to say 35...g5 was a mistake... in fact it looks like a good move :) but you should understand the different things it does.  It opens the f file for potential use for white's rook to become active while at the same time your king is off sides this may be dangerous.  Also it loosens the kingside formation so that the enemy king has more square for infiltration... the great thing 35...g5 does is by eliminating the pawn on f4 you've tied white's rook to the defense of the e5 pawn.  So not only would white have to pay a pawn for activating but your rook will also become a monster and infiltrate white's position.  Tying pieces to defense of something is a very powerful theme in endgames because remember it's all about activity.

Ok now look at the position after 38.Re1 and ask yourself again, how do you like your pieces?  Your bishop is doing a great job on d3 blocking that file, keeping his rook from infiltrating your position.  But again your king and rook would love to switch places.  Now evaluate white's pieces, his bishop is trapped for the moment, so he's nearly forced to play b3.

You play 38...Bf5 oh no! :)  Ok the logic might be you're trying to relieve the rook of his embarrassing role, but your bishop was already preforming a useful function, best was to swap the rook with your king, after 39.Rd1 it would be good to put your bishop back on d3.  The alternative to returning the bishop, taking the e5 pawn, may lead to a drawn opposite bishops endgame.  A quick and dirty way to evaluate such an endgame is to see if you'll have at least 2 strong advantages.  To win an opposite bishops endgame you need for example two passed pawns -- or a passed pawn on one wing, and a much superior king (in terms of activity), just looking quickly at 39...Rxe5 40.Rd6+ Re6 41.Rxe6 Bxe6 42.b3 it's not apparent to me how much progress black can make.

Ok so you let the rooks come off anyway and now look at the position after 41.exd6 and tell me what you see?  The two most important things that stand out to me (besides the difference in activity between the bishops and kings) are the pawns on a2 and h3 because they're (nearly) fixed targets (targets as in your bishop can attack them), but before your bishop can hunt for that queenside pawn (h3 is solid for now -- but was still worth noting as a fixed target) the king has to step into the square of the d3 pawn, and that's just what you do 41...Kf7 42.b3

Here I thought 42...Bb1 might be good, but I guess white can play 43.b4 so although capturing on your 42nd move releases the target on a2, it was a good move as the pawn on a2 wasn't fixed in place.  So after the trade on b3 (move 43) what do you think black should immediately notice?  That's right the light square pawn on b3 is terribly weak and is screaming to be attacked by your bishop, in fact it's nearly what chess players call a "dead body" -- that is, it's doomed.

White plays 45.h4 and you get a passer, woohoo!  As a target it was tying the king down to its defense.  It's hard to give black that passed pawn but even worse to leave the king over there -- all thanks to your pawn on g5 (pawns on the opposite color of your bishop tend to do this if your opponent isn't careful).

Now we come to the position after 46.Kxh4 two pawns up in the most drawish endgame in chess... but remember our quick and dirty rule?  If you can get two advantages, you have winning chances.  Here you have a passer on the kingside (1), and you'll be able to make one on the queenside with your majority as well (potentially a 2nd) -- so this is looking very good for black.  You play 46...g6

Oh no! well ok this is only a slight inaccuracy, but remember it's best to keep your pawns on the opposite color of your bishop until forced to move them, notice before 46...g6 that your pawns and bishop work well together forming a wall to keep the king out.  But even though it wasted time your position still seems fine because (here we go with activity again) the white king cannot continue to menace the g pawn because leaving his bishop alone to fight your king on the queenside would be fatal.  So what would I suggest for black on move 36 instead?  Fixing b3 as a target (fixing targets is another theme if you haven't noticed yet) with 46...Kc6 with b5 and b4 to follow up would doom white's b3 pawn by permanently fixing it on a white square and it looks like black will win.

49...c4 uh oh again :) this was probably black's last chance to save the win with 49...Bc2  With 49...c4 you get rid of his only light square pawn for him, yes it's good for him to have it opposite his bishop, but it was about to be doomed, and other than fixing it there, black has the immediate 49...Bc2 wins a pawn and we see by looking at the variation 49...Bc2 50.b4 axb4 51.cxb4 cxb4 52.Bxb4 you have two passers separated by over 3 files which should be enough to win.  With opposite bishops if you have two passers that are close together or connected, in some instances this is just one big advantage and sometimes the defender can defend, but when separated like this, they are fully two advantages, and should win.

With what actually happened in the game, the set of pawns on the c file lets white somewhat miraculously (although not surprising considering we're talking about opposite bishops) obtain a fortress and it's drawn.

Wow that turned out to be a lot you played a good game, hopefully this post gives you some info to chew on so you'll play even better.  To recap the most important thing is activity.  Activity is nearly synonymous with things like fixing targets, tying pieces to defense of a target, and infiltration.  Always weigh how active your pieces are vs their counterparts as well as against what maximum potential is (ie your rook as a blockader was preforming a useful function, but it had bigger dreams).  Also identify each side's weak pawns.  For example in R vs R endgames often your rook belongs on your 2nd rank to defend the pawn anchors there or, if you're solid, it belongs on the opponent's 2nd rank to eat up his pawns.

Pawn moves loosen squares for king infiltration and pawn trades open files for rook infiltration so stay alert.  Also a king is willing to blockade to release his rook, but a king is more powerful than a minor piece, and often a minor piece will trade blockading rolls with a king to free the king for more active duty.  Oh and also opposite color bishops endgames are winnable if you're able to get two advantages, and sometimes two connected passers are enough, but two widely separated passers (I think the rule is 3 files) are pretty much a sure thing.  However they're notoriously drawish for a reason, and in the game even with two widely separated passers, white's position holds.